Yeah wikipedia is no help in defining sex, it more often that not uses the word sex to explain what sex is.

Human sexual activities or human sexual practices or human sexual behavior refers to the manner in which humans experience and express their sexuality. People engage in a variety of sexual acts from time to time, and for a wide variety of reasons. Sexual activity normally results in sexual arousal and physiological changes in the aroused person, some of which are pronounced while others are more subtle. Sexual activity also includes conduct and activities which are intended to arouse the sexual interest of another, such as strategies to find or attract partners (mating and display behavior), and personal interactions between individuals, such as flirting and foreplay.

Actually I been thinking about this and I guess it is just one of those silly words that are only defined in relation to a gazillion other things.

why? there's nothing that sex is necessarily about, other than some kind of exercise of libidinal energy (insert any less wanky term you like). it's (obv) not definitively about procreation, it's not about anything you can pin down very easily (which is totally consistent with the fact that for a lot of people it represents the same/very similar things, or at least seems to).

Fair enough, but I would say that sex organs themselves are inherently sexual - I mean, that's what they're actually for - in a way that feet, say, are not. Yes some people have a foot 'thing', it's one of the commoner fetishes AFAIK, but for most of us they're a means of getting around the place rather than getting off. Whereas for the vast, vast majority of people, 'sexual activity' will at some point involve a man's outy bits and/or a woman's inny bits. Even foot nuts probably don't just rub their feet against someone else's feet (I should imagine!).

Fair enough, but I would say that sex organs themselves are inherently sexual - I mean, that's what they're actually for - in a way that feet, say, are not. Yes some people have a foot 'thing', it's one of the commoner fetishes AFAIK, but for most of us they're a means of getting around the place rather than getting off. Whereas for the vast, vast majority of people, 'sexual activity' will at some point involve a man's outy bits and/or a woman's inny bits. Even foot nuts probably don't just rub their feet against someone else's feet (I should imagine!).

Yep, maybe as the subject for sexual activity, genitals are involved because they're so bound up with pleasure (clitoris particularly good example cos pleasure is its only function), but the object of sexual pleasure/arousal is far less defined. If it was just about genitals, anyone would fuck anyone/anything in any state as long as it had a vagina/penis (i know this is some people's sexual direction, but you know what i mean!).

And the sexual organs themselves of course can be fetishised to be seen as more or less attractive (vaginal surgery). Sex is fetish; why do people get excited by certain things? Also porn and many other societal representations of sex are massively interesting here in the way that they actually shape people's desires.

It's complicated. Need to read more!

Suppose this all connects with the idea that sexuality is not innate, but a consequence of things within oneself and one's history that can't simply be dismissed as genetic/'it just is'.

The pragmatic problem in discussing this is obviously that the right wing has defined the terms of the debate and cornered non-normative sexualities into fiercely adopting the "natural" discourse.

this is the kind of thread that makes me miss, you know, my favorite dissensus poster evar.

Originally Posted by baboon2004

genitals are involved because they're so bound up with pleasure (clitoris particularly good example cos pleasure is its only function), but the object of sexual pleasure/arousal is far less defined. If it was just about genitals, anyone would fuck anyone/anything in any state as long as it had a vagina/penis (i know this is some people's sexual direction, but you know what i mean!).

this is what i don't understand, how can asexuals not want sex when their genital AND visual/sexual stimulation seem to be at the same level of sensitivity and function seemingly the same way as sexuals?

from article:

research shows there is no gender split; men and women are equally likely to be asexual. However, asexual men are much more likely to masturbate than asexual women; as likely, it would seem, as men with "normal" sex drives, suggesting that they are responding to a physical imperative. When Brotto conducted an experiment to measure the vaginal reactions of female participants to visual sexual stimulus, the physical reactions among asexual women were the same as that of women who report an otherwise "normal" sex drive. Brotto also says there is nothing to suggest that asexual people are any more or less likely to have suffered childhood abuse than anyone else.

huh?

Originally Posted by baboon2004

Also porn and many other societal representations of sex are massively interesting here in the way that they actually shape people's desires.

this is probably a different topic entirely but yes... people whose first sexual experiences, sometimes for years, are with various representations of a partner or physical objects rather than another human have got to be completely screwed up in some fundamental way.

Originally Posted by baboon2004

Suppose this all connects with the idea that sexuality is not innate, but a consequence of things within oneself and one's history that can't simply be dismissed as genetic/'it just is'.

i would say Sexuality is entirely a cultural construct, yet one that is based on biological impulses. does that make sense? that it's not just a combination of the 2...

research shows there is no gender split; men and women are equally likely to be asexual. However, asexual men are much more likely to masturbate than asexual women; as likely, it would seem, as men with "normal" sex drives, suggesting that they are responding to a physical imperative.

is not necessarily paradoxical. Men's bodies produce semen all the time and if enough of it builds up, it can be physically uncomfortable. It needs to get out.

And it's not just asexuals that can divorce physical pleasure from sexual desire. An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

i've heard the same, many times. i think this MIGHT be, according to my VERY LIMITED, SECOND HAND knowledge, more common with women than men (is that sexist???)

is not necessarily paradoxical. Men's bodies produce semen all the time and if enough of it builds up, it can be physically uncomfortable. It needs to get out.

And it's not just asexuals that can divorce physical pleasure from sexual desire. An ex of mine, who generally had a pretty high sex drive, once told me that sometimes when she masturbates she isn't thinking about anything sexual at all, but just enjoying the sensation. Which, to me, sounds crazy, but there you go.

I do that all the time.

Do people really not do that?

Just the same as like scratching yr armpit or rubbing your feet on the carpet to me